[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: removing scm_gc_mark_conservatively()
From: |
Dirk Herrmann |
Subject: |
Re: removing scm_gc_mark_conservatively() |
Date: |
Thu, 27 Sep 2001 21:54:47 +0200 (MEST) |
Hello Marius,
a question: How do you think should initialization work? A first
approach would be similar to:
#define SCM_INIT_CELL(c, x, y) \
do { \
SCM_SET_CELL_WORD_1 (c, y); \
SCM_SET_CELL_TYPE (c, x); \
scm_remember_upto_here_1 (y); \
}
But this will have a negative influence on performance, since in many
cases the call to scm_remember_upto_here_1 will be unnecessary. It will
be unnecessary if y is known to be used after the cell initialization, and
it is unnecessary if y is an immediate value. The compiler can't optimize
it away either, since that is the point why scm_remember_upto_here_1 works
at all.
I guess that you have some different solution in mind, right?
Best regards
Dirk Herrmann
- removing scm_gc_mark_conservatively(), Chris Cramer, 2001/09/16
- Re: removing scm_gc_mark_conservatively(), Dirk Herrmann, 2001/09/17
- Re: removing scm_gc_mark_conservatively(), Marius Vollmer, 2001/09/22
- Re: removing scm_gc_mark_conservatively(), Dirk Herrmann, 2001/09/24
- Re: removing scm_gc_mark_conservatively(), Marius Vollmer, 2001/09/25
- Re: removing scm_gc_mark_conservatively(), Dirk Herrmann, 2001/09/25
- Re: removing scm_gc_mark_conservatively(), Marius Vollmer, 2001/09/26
- Re: removing scm_gc_mark_conservatively(), Dirk Herrmann, 2001/09/27
- Re: removing scm_gc_mark_conservatively(),
Dirk Herrmann <=
- Re: removing scm_gc_mark_conservatively(), Marius Vollmer, 2001/09/27
- Re: removing scm_gc_mark_conservatively(), Marius Vollmer, 2001/09/27